Introduction
An important lesson that I have learned in my years as a negotiation and mediation scholar and practitioner, and one which has faithfully guided my client work is that how you say something is as important as what you say. The phraseology that you choose and the way in which you frame issues will make all the difference to the success or failure of a negotiation. Many negotiators spend adequate time in preparing data, strategies, comparative pricing, market research and bottom lines, but neglect to invest time in preparing for how they will manage the critical communication aspect of the negotiation.
Effective communication in negotiations bears three hallmarks: Well organized; succinct, clear and cogent; framed as a need to be met or a problem to be jointly solved.
Perhaps a good way to demonstrate this is by first examining a real example of poor communication in negotiations measured against these three elements. We will then translate that content into a more constructive communication that incorporates these hallmarks of effective negotiation language.
An Example of Poor Communication
At the recent breakfast kickoff for the NATO summit in Brussels, President Trump met with the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. At that breakfast, The President held forth on issues that were of concern to him with regards to the NATO alliance.
(Disclaimer: This is not intended in any way to be reflective of how this author feels about Mr. Trump or the effectiveness of his presidency. This column is not a forum for that in any way whatsoever. The intent is only to extract valuable negotiation lessons for purposes of our own improvement). Below is a transcript of his remarks:
“Germany is totally controlled by Russia. . . "
The President was concerned about two issues in these remarks. Firstly, Germany being “a captive” of Russia because of the energy deal, and secondly, the disproportionate and unfair defense contributions among NATO countries, with the US paying the highest percentage of the largest GDP.
Let us measure the President’s words against our three hallmarks of effective negotiation language: Well organized; succinct, clear and cogent; framed as a need to be met or a problem to be jointly solved.
Read more -->
An important lesson that I have learned in my years as a negotiation and mediation scholar and practitioner, and one which has faithfully guided my client work is that how you say something is as important as what you say. The phraseology that you choose and the way in which you frame issues will make all the difference to the success or failure of a negotiation. Many negotiators spend adequate time in preparing data, strategies, comparative pricing, market research and bottom lines, but neglect to invest time in preparing for how they will manage the critical communication aspect of the negotiation.
Effective communication in negotiations bears three hallmarks: Well organized; succinct, clear and cogent; framed as a need to be met or a problem to be jointly solved.
Perhaps a good way to demonstrate this is by first examining a real example of poor communication in negotiations measured against these three elements. We will then translate that content into a more constructive communication that incorporates these hallmarks of effective negotiation language.
An Example of Poor Communication
At the recent breakfast kickoff for the NATO summit in Brussels, President Trump met with the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. At that breakfast, The President held forth on issues that were of concern to him with regards to the NATO alliance.
(Disclaimer: This is not intended in any way to be reflective of how this author feels about Mr. Trump or the effectiveness of his presidency. This column is not a forum for that in any way whatsoever. The intent is only to extract valuable negotiation lessons for purposes of our own improvement). Below is a transcript of his remarks:
“Germany is totally controlled by Russia. . . "
The President was concerned about two issues in these remarks. Firstly, Germany being “a captive” of Russia because of the energy deal, and secondly, the disproportionate and unfair defense contributions among NATO countries, with the US paying the highest percentage of the largest GDP.
Let us measure the President’s words against our three hallmarks of effective negotiation language: Well organized; succinct, clear and cogent; framed as a need to be met or a problem to be jointly solved.
Read more -->
